Can interventions improve health services from informal private providers in low and middle-income countries?: a comprehensive review of the literature.

IF 3.1 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health policy and planning Pub Date : 2011-07-01 Epub Date: 2010-11-19 DOI:10.1093/heapol/czq074
Nirali M Shah, William R Brieger, David H Peters
{"title":"Can interventions improve health services from informal private providers in low and middle-income countries?: a comprehensive review of the literature.","authors":"Nirali M Shah,&nbsp;William R Brieger,&nbsp;David H Peters","doi":"10.1093/heapol/czq074","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BACKGROUND There is a growing interest in the role of private health providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Informal private providers (IPPs) provide a significant portion of health care in many LMICs, but they have not received training in allopathic medicine. Interventions have been developed to take advantage of their potential to expand access to essential health services, although their success is not well measured. This paper addresses this information gap through a review of interventions designed to improve the quality, coverage, or costs of health services provided by IPPs in LMICs. METHODS A search for published literature in the last 15 years for any intervention dealing with IPPs in a LMIC, where at least one outcome was measured, was conducted through electronic databases PubMed and Global Health, as well as Google for grey literature from the Internet. RESULTS A total of 1272 articles were retrieved, of which 70 separate studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (70%) of outcomes measured proximate indicators such as provider knowledge (61% were positive) and behaviour (56% positive). Training IPPs was the most common intervention tested (77% of studies), but the more effective strategies did not involve training alone. Interventions that changed the institutional relationships and contributed to changing the incentives and accountability environment were most successful, and often required combinations of interventions. CONCLUSION Although there are documented interventions among IPPs, there are few good quality studies. Strategies that change the market conditions for IPPs-by changing incentives and accountability-appear more likely to succeed than those that depend on building individual capacities of IPPs. Understanding the effectiveness of these and other strategies will also require more rigorous research designs that assess contextual factors and document outcomes over longer periods.</p>","PeriodicalId":12926,"journal":{"name":"Health policy and planning","volume":"26 4","pages":"275-87"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2011-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/heapol/czq074","citationCount":"83","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health policy and planning","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/heapol/czq074","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2010/11/19 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 83

Abstract

BACKGROUND There is a growing interest in the role of private health providers in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Informal private providers (IPPs) provide a significant portion of health care in many LMICs, but they have not received training in allopathic medicine. Interventions have been developed to take advantage of their potential to expand access to essential health services, although their success is not well measured. This paper addresses this information gap through a review of interventions designed to improve the quality, coverage, or costs of health services provided by IPPs in LMICs. METHODS A search for published literature in the last 15 years for any intervention dealing with IPPs in a LMIC, where at least one outcome was measured, was conducted through electronic databases PubMed and Global Health, as well as Google for grey literature from the Internet. RESULTS A total of 1272 articles were retrieved, of which 70 separate studies met inclusion criteria. The majority (70%) of outcomes measured proximate indicators such as provider knowledge (61% were positive) and behaviour (56% positive). Training IPPs was the most common intervention tested (77% of studies), but the more effective strategies did not involve training alone. Interventions that changed the institutional relationships and contributed to changing the incentives and accountability environment were most successful, and often required combinations of interventions. CONCLUSION Although there are documented interventions among IPPs, there are few good quality studies. Strategies that change the market conditions for IPPs-by changing incentives and accountability-appear more likely to succeed than those that depend on building individual capacities of IPPs. Understanding the effectiveness of these and other strategies will also require more rigorous research designs that assess contextual factors and document outcomes over longer periods.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
干预措施能否改善低收入和中等收入国家非正规私人提供者提供的卫生服务?对文献的全面回顾。
在低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs),人们对私营卫生服务提供者的作用越来越感兴趣。在许多低收入和中等收入国家,非正式私人提供者(ipp)提供了很大一部分保健服务,但他们没有接受过对抗疗法医学方面的培训。已经制定了干预措施,以利用其扩大获得基本保健服务的潜力,尽管其成功程度尚未得到很好的衡量。本文通过对旨在改善中低收入国家ipp提供的卫生服务的质量、覆盖面或成本的干预措施进行审查,解决了这一信息差距。方法:通过PubMed和Global Health的电子数据库,以及谷歌搜索互联网上的灰色文献,检索过去15年出版的文献,包括在低收入和中等收入国家中处理ipp的任何干预措施,其中至少测量了一个结果。结果共检索到1272篇文献,其中70篇独立研究符合纳入标准。大多数(70%)的结果测量近似指标,如提供者知识(61%为阳性)和行为(56%为阳性)。培训ipp是最常见的干预测试(77%的研究),但更有效的策略不包括单独的培训。改变体制关系和有助于改变激励机制和问责环境的干预措施是最成功的,而且往往需要采取多种干预措施。结论:虽然有文献记载的ipp干预措施,但质量好的研究很少。通过改变激励机制和问责制来改变ipp市场条件的战略似乎比那些依赖于建立ipp个人能力的战略更有可能成功。了解这些策略和其他策略的有效性还需要更严格的研究设计,以评估上下文因素并记录更长期的结果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health policy and planning
Health policy and planning 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
3.10%
发文量
98
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: Health Policy and Planning publishes health policy and systems research focusing on low- and middle-income countries. Our journal provides an international forum for publishing original and high-quality research that addresses questions pertinent to policy-makers, public health researchers and practitioners. Health Policy and Planning is published 10 times a year.
期刊最新文献
Correction to: Governing health through security in the Philippines: a realist analysis. Advancing health policy and systems research and analysis: new frontiers, renewed relevance. Dynamic and heterogeneous impacts of granting and revoking elective c-section rights in São Paulo. Health professionals' knowledge and understanding of inclusion health: a systematic literature review. A narrative review on cost considerations in early intervention for deaf and/or hard-of-hearing children in Africa.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1